Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That is so ignorant, wmfights, it's pathetic. That tells me you never even bothered to read the history of what happened. That doesn't surprise me. Who needs anything but the Bible, right? All the history God wanted us to know is in it, right?
Matt. 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven."
The bible is clear that the Commission was given to the apostles and from them to their successors, those appointed in the church to be the elders. It was never given to the laity.
Protestant insistance that it was is in fact contra-biblical, just as "sola scriptura" superstition is.
Besides the Apostles, the prophets and teachers are church functions appointed by God. They were not ordinary laity. They were ordained elders of the Church. As far as I remember they actually laid their hands on them before they sent them off.
It ends at chapter 16:8, the rest was added sometime later by an unknown
Yes I am well aware of that, but are you saying that the bible contains fraud, human additions and deletions, when it is supposed to be the "pristine" word of God?
Fine, if +Mark is not included, +Matthew was the real witnessed. He heard the Commission. +Luke had to "research" it and all he could come up with is eleven plus women (I suppose the women who discovered the empty tomb, and even that is controversial as to how many were there).
In fact, Matthew's Genealogy of Joseph and Luke's differ on very crucial points: Jospeh's own father's name and the number of generations and names involved. +Luke's account of +Paul's "event" on the way to Damascus doesn't agree with +Paul's own, or +Paul's account abut the division that boiled up in Jerusalem with the party of +James.
Obviously there is some issue with +Luke's research as opposed to eyewitness accounts.
In Acts 18:24-28, it is Aquilla and his wife Priscilla, tent makers, who teach Apollos the way and then he becomes a powerful teacher in Ephesus and Corinth, so much so, his following almost splits the church at Corinth
My point exactly. +Paul is adamant about women being silent in the church. Which is it? Obviously +Luke favored women. Many Christian myths did, especially virgins. We have two apostles disagreeing on the role of women.
You wrote:
“When the anathemas of Trent are rescinded, we can all talk about our “moral equity” in the eyes of the RCC.”
Were you once Catholic? Unless you were the anathemas don’t apply to you. You knew that right?
You wrote:
“And you are preaching churchiology. I think I just coined a new word. Thanks Kosta50!”
Too late. Already done really - it’s called “ecclesiology”. By the way, did you mean something other than what you wrote? I ask because “churchiology” would just mean the “study of the church”. Bibliolatry means the WORSHIP of the book or the Bible. What would be wrong with studying the Church? Nothing. Worshiping the Bible? Yeah, that’s a problem.
So? Who do you think wrote the New Testament and explained the Old?
Why, Christ comissioned the Holy Apostles to teach all nation and some of them found it useful to write the Gospels and Epistles to accomplish that.
What about worshipping the Church?
You wrote:
“What about worshipping the Church?”
You could always make up a word: “churcholatry”, but there is already an actual word: “ecclesiolatry”: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0004918.html
I know it appears in some printed dictionaries too. Random House Unabridged is one. According to it, the term dates back to about 1845.
The real issue would be, however, who actually worships a church? No one. And the definition seems to take that into account by lowering the threshold of the literal meaning of the word: “ worship of or undue devotion to church.” Undue devotion (and who decides what is undue anyway?) is still not worship.
But at least now you have a proper word even if you have nothing to apply it to!
First, on a personal note, I am not impressed with titles and positions. Let's not forget that such theological giants as Origen and Tertullian ended up falling into heresy. Don't forget that Arius and Marcion were bishops, and that many sho strayed were a Patriarchs of Contsantinople! (that's a lot higher than the very reverend Fr. Tarazi). No one is ever high enough not to be subject to error.
That's OK. I was just telling you who the guy was. I don't know this guy from Adam. I just found him. :) But on the bottom line, DESPITE what you think of the good Father, I still maintain that the use of "Daddy" is good and proper because of the familiar connection. It is personal and it is intimate. I truly believe that God wants to have this type of relationship with us rather than one where we are a drone reporting through ten layers of hierarchy to get to Him. I KNOW that my relationship with God is nothing like that.
I am also very suspicious of clean shaven Orthodox priests. There is a "message" behind it.
I did not know that was (potentially) suspicious.
More importantly, he is not a spokesman for the entire Church.
That's right. To me he is "some guy". :) But he DOES represent the website called the "Orthodox Research Institute". If you know, is this website a fraud?
You are creating a straw man, FK. His opinions are just that, theological opinions, Orthodoxy calls them theologoumenna.
Oh, come on Kosta! I found some guy from an official looking website and I fully linked to it. If it should be trashed then I gave you the opportunity. :) There is no sneakery on my part here. :)
I submit that no serious Orthodox priest would ever say that Christ called the Father "Daddy."
"Daddy" is an English equivalent. The point is a showing of intimacy and personality and family. The idea behind it is that God WANTS a personal relationship with us, His children.
First, on a personal note, I am not impressed with titles and positions. Let's not forget that such theological giants as Origen and Tertullian ended up falling into heresy. Don't forget that Arius and Marcion were bishops, and that many sho strayed were a Patriarchs of Contsantinople! (that's a lot higher than the very reverend Fr. Tarazi). No one is ever high enough not to be subject to error.
That's OK. I was just telling you who the guy was. I don't know this guy from Adam. I just found him. :) But on the bottom line, DESPITE what you think of the good Father, I still maintain that the use of "Daddy" is good and proper because of the familiar connection. It is personal and it is intimate. I truly believe that God wants to have this type of relationship with us rather than one where we are a drone reporting through ten layers of hierarchy to get to Him. I KNOW that my relationship with God is nothing like that.
I am also very suspicious of clean shaven Orthodox priests. There is a "message" behind it.
I did not know that was (potentially) suspicious.
More importantly, he is not a spokesman for the entire Church.
That's right. To me he is "some guy". :) But he DOES represent the website called the "Orthodox Research Institute". If you know, is this website a fraud?
You are creating a straw man, FK. His opinions are just that, theological opinions, Orthodoxy calls them theologoumenna.
Oh, come on Kosta! I found some guy from an official looking website and I fully linked to it. If it should be trashed then I gave you the opportunity. :) There is no sneakery on my part here. :)
I submit that no serious Orthodox priest would ever say that Christ called the Father "Daddy."
"Daddy" is an English equivalent. The point is a showing of intimacy and personality and family. The idea behind it is that God WANTS a personal relationship with us, His children.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You are a man who understands me, Irish. :)
***Ooops! You are going to put out of business the whole Baptist community, Mark, by quoting scriptures they somehow “overlooked.” Their theology insists baptism is not required for salvation.***
Isn’t it ironic - the group that named themselves Baptists don’t believe in salvific baptism. Well, not ironic pe se, merely illustrative of man-made theologies.
I’m not sure of exactly what separates the various denominations except for degree of heresy.
***Do you mean good works in God’s eyes? Truly good works? My position is NOT that the appearance of a good work proves true faith. We can’t know that. But we CAN know that the heathen can do NO good works.***
But the Reformed claim that even the non-elect do God’s will and will in some cases help the elect towards their eternal salvation. Actually, I thought that you said something to that effect. Is that not good works in God’s eyes - the assisting of the elect towards recognizing their status and eternal salvation?
***True faith is the ONLY thing that bears true fruit, good works, in God’s eyes:***
But if the Reformed claim that good works is evidence of salvation, how does that provide evidence to us if only God understands whether it’s good works or not.
***It is obedience to God. In my personal book, that is essential. :)***
But it’s not about your personal book, or mine. It’s about God’s.
***I do not obey to earn points toward salvation, I obey because I WANT to with the new heart that God gave me.***
How do you separate your own selfish wants from the want to obey God? You must have some selfish wants since the Reformed do admit that the elect wander into sin. Sin is the pursuit of selfish wants instead of obedience to God. How would you characterize that struggle?
***What happens if one of the elect simply neglected to do good works?
That can’t happen, simply on a definitional level.***
Says who? Whose definition?
***True believers CAN go through lapses in faith, entailing not doing works. However, it cannot be fatal ultimately because Christ loses NONE of those the Father has given Him.***
If you truly believe, how can you go through lapses in faith? Scripture says that none can snatch them out of His hand, not that they cannot walk away - the goats and those who sin boldly.
***Along with yourself, I like to think that my Catholic teachers are VERY good. :)***
Thank you for the compliment. I do, however think more of myself as a dwarf standing on the shoulders of theological giants. Including some folks right here on FR.
***I look at the realities of our children and how we shape them as parents. One classic example is having a small child “help” with something. Even though the actual help was negligible we still thank them and they feel like they have contributed.***
I’m sorry but I really don’t get this analogy.
***I understand how materialistic your faith is, but if your interpretation is correct (which I don’t believe it is) the folks claiming infant baptism imparts Grace are in deep trouble.***
Our faith is about us and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Infant Baptism imparting Grace to the child is wrong how? Entire households being baptized does not exclude the children.
Matt 28:
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
What was Jesus talking about here? If baptism isn’t required, why does He send the Apostles out to baptize all?
I fear that this illustrates a mindset that separates us. We take the Bible as a whole - merely because something is mentioned here and not there does not mean that we can eliminate it from our theology using only the second verses.
If Scripture says that this is required and elsewhere it says that that is required, we understand that they both are required. We are not allowed to pick and choose.
***Error creeps in quickly. IIRC, there were others who tried to wait till just before they died to be baptized because they were afraid if they sinned afterward they would be condemned.***
Are you saying that the Apostles and those that they taught were in error almost immediately? I get the feeling that the Protestant point of view is that aside from setting the Canon, the Church was dead for 1500 years until the Holy Spirit woke up from his nap and decided that Luther et al needed to take over from the Catholics.
***Then why do you baptize non believers?***
If you are referring to infant baptism, it is to claim the child for Christ and to bring him to the Holy Spirit and His Grace.
The Old Testament God was no "Daddy," FK. His way of dealing with misbehaved children was rather extreme. He wants to be worshiped and feared. Some, in their twisted ways, call that "love."
The Jews did not have a "personal God." That is a Protestant innovation, or rather perversion, that is consistent with their whole "me-myself-and God" ego-centric, self-serving, self-made church and theology.
I truly believe that God wants to have this type of relationship with us rather than one where we are a drone reporting through ten layers of hierarchy to get to Him
I respect your belief, and I believe it is genuine, but where do you find that in the Bible? The authority of a father in the Middle East society of the 1st century was that of a master and not of a "daddy."
Those fathers didn't change diapers, or burp their babies, for sure. Disrespect, let alone disobedience, to the parents, was punishable by death! So, a God being "Daddy" is also an innovation from the historical and cultural facts about the Middle East of Jesus' time. Fr. Tarazi cannot be taken seriously, not as an Orthodox priest.
We don't know God through "layers of hierarchy," but through praise, prayer, fasting, and in life trying to imitate Christ.
But he DOES represent the website called the "Orthodox Research Institute". If you know, is this website a fraud?
Is PC USA a fraud? What's a fraud, FK? There are liberal bishops or bishop-equivalents in all Christian communities. Arius was a bishop, and so was Marcion.
I found some guy from an official looking website and I fully linked to it. If it should be trashed then I gave you the opportunity. :) There is no sneakery on my part here. :)
You can find anything on the Internet. That's why we need to verify and research the information. For all you know an "official-looking" site may be a one-man operation such as the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site. I once fell for it too, believing it represnted official Vatican views. It doesn't.
"Daddy" is an English equivalent. The point is a showing of intimacy and personality and family. The idea behind it is that God WANTS a personal relationship with us, His children
This is a 21st century American idea and sterotype. This is completely false when taken in context of the 1st century Israel, culturally, socially and religiously. The Protestant approach is an innvation that was unknown to the world then, and is a perfect exmaple of how, void of traditional guardrails, the Bible gets distorted in the light of modernism and personal values of each indivdual interpreter.
This is true -- and, remarkably, no one ever offers prayers for the poor woman. To mangle Tertullian: One wife -- for all those bishops?
Anybody want to join me in perpetual Novena?
So is worshipping the church...
I'm sure it's the handicap of my up-bringing, but I sure never heard THAT one before. Are there any other instances in Scripture where Scripture and being "born of water" are in that kind of metaphorical relationship?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.